Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3765941" data-attributes="member: 22779">And there, we're just not going to agree.&nbsp; Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work.&nbsp; The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960.&nbsp; Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations.&nbsp; As I said, we aren't going to agree on this.&nbsp; You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so.&nbsp; That unless 100% of the people claim it is bad, that it cannot be bad.&nbsp; To me, there is a world of difference between me trying to critique a work and someone who has made a life study of it.&nbsp; That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond &quot;I like it, therefore its good.&quot;The tendency to conflate subjective taste with quality is very pervasive.&nbsp; Just because I like something doesn't make it good.&nbsp; On the flip side, just because something is popular, doesn't make it bad as well.&nbsp; There is a danger, and you see this in music all the time, that as soon as something goes mainstream, it's no longer &quot;good&quot;.&nbsp; Early fans talk about bands &quot;selling out&quot; and that new fans just aren't really fans.&nbsp; This is equally problematic.But, in the end, I'm going state, I believe objectively, that Mozart writes better music than I do.&nbsp; Mozart is objectively better than anything I can do.&nbsp; I might not even like it that much, but I know that its better.&nbsp; Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.&nbsp; Michaelangelo is a better painter than you are.&nbsp; (probably <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )&nbsp; Etc, etc.&nbsp; There are objective standards we can apply to a given work.&nbsp; Those standards will change depending on what we are examining, but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3765941, member: 22779"] And there, we're just not going to agree. Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work. The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960. Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations. As I said, we aren't going to agree on this. You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so. That unless 100% of the people claim it is bad, that it cannot be bad. To me, there is a world of difference between me trying to critique a work and someone who has made a life study of it. That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond "I like it, therefore its good." The tendency to conflate subjective taste with quality is very pervasive. Just because I like something doesn't make it good. On the flip side, just because something is popular, doesn't make it bad as well. There is a danger, and you see this in music all the time, that as soon as something goes mainstream, it's no longer "good". Early fans talk about bands "selling out" and that new fans just aren't really fans. This is equally problematic. But, in the end, I'm going state, I believe objectively, that Mozart writes better music than I do. Mozart is objectively better than anything I can do. I might not even like it that much, but I know that its better. Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King. Michaelangelo is a better painter than you are. (probably :) ) Etc, etc. There are objective standards we can apply to a given work. Those standards will change depending on what we are examining, but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification